Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ita est temperantia circa concupiscentias et delectationes sicut fortitudo circa timores et audacias. Fortitudo autem est circa timores et audacias respectu maximorum malorum, quibus ipsa natura extinguitur, quae sunt pericula mortis. Unde similiter temperantia oportet quod sit circa concupiscentias maximarum delectationum. Et quia delectatio consequitur operationem connaturalem, tanto aliquae delectationes sunt vehementiores quanto consequuntur operationes magis naturales. Maxime autem naturales animalibus sunt operationes quibus conservatur natura individui per cibum et potum, et natura speciei per coniunctionem maris et feminae. Et ideo circa delectationes ciborum et potuum, et circa delectationes venereorum, est proprie temperantia. Huiusmodi autem delectationes consequuntur sensum tactus. Unde relinquitur quod temperantia sit circa delectationes tactus.
I answer that, As stated above (A. 3), temperance is about desires and pleasures in the same way as fortitude is about fear and daring. Now fortitude is about fear and daring with respect to the greatest evils whereby nature itself is dissolved; and such are dangers of death. Wherefore in like manner temperance must needs be about desires for the greatest pleasures. And since pleasure results from a natural operation, it is so much the greater according as it results from a more natural operation. Now to animals the most natural operations are those which preserve the nature of the individual by means of meat and drink, and the nature of the species by the union of the sexes. Hence temperance is properly about pleasures of meat and drink and sexual pleasures. Now these pleasures result from the sense of touch. Wherefore it follows that temperance is about pleasures of touch.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus ibi videtur accipere temperantiam non secundum quod est specialis virtus habens determinatam materiam, sed secundum quod ad eam pertinet moderatio rationis in quacumque materia, quod pertinet ad generalem conditionem virtutis. Quamvis etiam dici possit quod ille qui potest refrenare maximas delectationes, multo etiam magis potest refrenare minores delectationes. Et ideo ad temperantiam principaliter quidem et proprie pertinet moderari concupiscentias delectationum tactus, secundario autem, alias concupiscentias.
Reply Obj. 1: In the passage quoted Augustine apparently takes temperance not as a special virtue having a determinate matter, but as concerned with the moderation of reason, in any matter whatever: and this is a general condition of every virtue. However, we may also reply that if a man can control the greatest pleasures, much more can he control lesser ones. Wherefore it belongs chiefly and properly to temperance to moderate desires and pleasures of touch, and secondarily other pleasures.
Ad secundum dicendum quod philosophus ibi refert nomen temperantiae ad moderationem exteriorum rerum, dum scilicet aliquis tendit in aliqua sibi commensurata, non autem prout refertur ad moderationem affectionum animae, quae pertinet ad virtutem temperantiae.
Reply Obj. 2: The Philosopher takes temperance as denoting moderation in external things, when, to wit, a man tends to that which is proportionate to him, but not as denoting moderation in the soul’s emotions, which pertains to the virtue of temperance.
Ad tertium dicendum quod delectationes aliorum sensuum aliter se habent in hominibus, et aliter in aliis animalibus. In aliis enim animalibus ex aliis sensibus non causantur delectationes nisi in ordine ad sensibilia tactus, sicut leo delectatur videns cervum vel audiens vocem eius, propter cibum. Homo autem delectatur secundum alios sensus non solum propter hoc, sed etiam propter convenientiam sensibilium. Et sic circa delectationes aliorum sensuum, inquantum referuntur ad delectationes tactus, est temperantia, non principaliter, sed ex consequenti. Inquantum autem sensibilia aliorum sensuum sunt delectabilia propter sui convenientiam, sicut cum delectatur homo in sono bene harmonizato, ista delectatio non pertinet ad conservationem naturae. Unde non habent huiusmodi passiones illam principalitatem ut circa eas antonomastice temperantia dicatur.
Reply Obj. 3: The pleasures of the other senses play a different part in man and in other animals. For in other animals pleasures do not result from the other senses save in relation to sensibles of touch: thus the lion is pleased to see the stag, or to hear its voice, in relation to his food. On the other hand man derives pleasure from the other senses, not only for this reason, but also on account of the becomingness of the sensible object. Wherefore temperance is about the pleasures of the other senses, in relation to pleasures of touch, not principally but consequently: while insofar as the sensible objects of the other senses are pleasant on account of their becomingness, as when a man is pleased at a well-harmonized sound, this pleasure has nothing to do with the preservation of nature. Hence these passions are not of such importance that temperance can be referred to them antonomastically.
Ad quartum dicendum quod delectationes spirituales, etsi secundum suam naturam sint maiores delectationibus corporalibus, tamen non ita percipiuntur sensu. Et per consequens non ita vehementer afficiunt appetitum sensitivum, contra cuius impetum bonum rationis conservatur per moralem virtutem. Vel dicendum quod delectationes spirituales, per se loquendo, sunt secundum rationem. Unde non sunt refrenandae, nisi per accidens, inquantum scilicet una delectatio spiritualis retrahit ab alia potiori et magis debita.
Reply Obj. 4: Although spiritual pleasures are by their nature greater than bodily pleasures, they are not so perceptible to the senses, and consequently they do not so strongly affect the sensitive appetite, against whose impulse the good of reason is safeguarded by moral virtue. We may also reply that spiritual pleasures, strictly speaking, are in accordance with reason, wherefore they need no control, save accidentally, insofar as one spiritual pleasure is a hindrance to another greater and more binding.
Ad quintum dicendum quod non omnes delectationes tactus pertinent ad naturae conservationem. Et ideo non oportet quod circa omnes delectationes tactus sit temperantia.
Reply Obj. 5: Not all pleasures of touch regard the preservation of nature, and consequently it does not follow that temperance is about all pleasures of touch.
Utrum circa proprias delectationes gustus sit temperantia
Whether temperance is about the pleasures proper to the taste?
Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod circa proprias delectationes gustus sit temperantia. Delectationes enim gustus sunt in cibis et potibus, qui sunt magis necessarii ad vitam hominis quam delectationes venereorum, quae pertinent ad tactum. Sed secundum praedicta, temperantia est circa delectationes eorum quae sunt necessaria ad vitam hominis. Ergo temperantia est magis circa proprias delectationes gustus quam circa proprias delectationes tactus.
Objection 1: It would seem that temperance is about pleasures proper to the taste. For pleasures of the taste result from food and drink, which are more necessary to man’s life than sexual pleasures, which regard the touch. But according to what has been said (A. 4), temperance is about pleasures in things that are necessary to human life. Therefore temperance is about pleasures proper to the taste rather than about those proper to the touch.
Praeterea, temperantia est circa passiones magis quam circa res ipsas. Sed sicut dicitur in II de anima, tactus videtur esse sensus alimenti, quantum ad ipsam substantiam alimenti, sapor autem, qui est proprie obiectum gustus, est sicut delectamentum alimentorum. Ergo temperantia magis est circa gustum quam circa tactum.
Obj. 2: Further, temperance is about the passions rather than about things themselves. Now, according to De Anima ii, 3, the touch is the sense of food, as regards the very substance of the food, whereas savor, which is the proper object of the taste, is the pleasing quality of the food. Therefore temperance is about the taste rather than about the touch.
Praeterea, sicut dicitur in VII Ethic., circa eadem sunt temperantia et intemperantia, continentia et incontinentia, perseverantia et mollities, ad quam pertinent deliciae. Sed ad delicias videtur pertinere delectatio quae est in saporibus, qui pertinent ad gustum. Ergo temperantia est circa delectationes proprias gustus.
Obj. 3: Further, according to Ethic. vii, 4, 7: temperance and intemperance are about the same things, and so are continence and incontinence, perseverance, and effeminacy, to which delicacy pertains. Now delicacy seems to regard the delight taken in savors which are the object of the taste. Therefore temperance is about pleasures proper to the taste.
Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit quod temperantia et intemperantia videntur gustu parum vel nihil uti.
On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 10) that seemingly temperance and intemperance have little if anything to do with the taste.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, temperantia consistit circa praecipuas delectationes, quae maxime pertinent ad conservationem humanae vitae, vel in specie vel in individuo. In quibus aliquid consideratur principaliter, aliquid autem secundario. Principaliter quidem ipse usus rei necessariae, puta vel feminae, quae est necessaria ad conservationem speciei; vel cibi vel potus, quae sunt necessaria ad conservationem individui. Et ipse usus horum necessariorum habet quandam essentialem delectationem adiunctam.
I answer that, As stated above (A. 4), temperance is about the greatest pleasures, which chiefly regard the preservation of human life either in the species or in the individual. In these matters certain things are to be considered as principal and others as secondary. The principal thing is the use itself of the necessary means, of the woman who is necessary for the preservation of the species, or of food and drink which are necessary for the preservation of the individual: while the very use of these necessary things has a certain essential pleasure annexed thereto.
Secundario autem consideratur circa utrumque usum aliquid quod facit ad hoc quod usus sit magis delectabilis, sicut pulchritudo et ornatus feminae, et sapor delectabilis in cibo, et etiam odor. Et ideo principaliter temperantia est circa delectationem tactus, quae per se consequitur ipsum usum rerum necessariarum, quarum omnis usus est in tangendo. Circa delectationes autem vel gustus vel olfactus vel visus, est temperantia et intemperantia secundario, inquantum sensibilia horum sensuum conferunt ad delectabilem usum rerum necessariarum, qui pertinet ad tactum. Quia tamen gustus propinquior est tactui quam alii sensus, ideo temperantia magis est circa gustum quam circa alios sensus.
In regard to either use we consider as secondary whatever makes the use more pleasurable, such as beauty and adornment in woman, and a pleasing savor and likewise odor in food. Hence temperance is chiefly about the pleasure of touch that results essentially from the use of these necessary things, which use is in all cases attained by the touch. Secondarily, however, temperance and intemperance are about pleasures of the taste, smell, or sight, inasmuch as the sensible objects of these senses conduce to the pleasurable use of the necessary things that have relation to the touch. But since the taste is more akin to the touch than the other senses are, it follows that temperance is more about the taste than about the other senses.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod etiam ipse usus ciborum, et delectatio essentialiter ipsum consequens, ad tactum pertinet, unde philosophus dicit, in II de anima, quod tactus est sensus alimenti, nutrimur enim calido et frigido, humido et sicco. Sed ad gustum pertinet discretio saporum, qui conferunt ad delectationem alimenti, inquantum sunt signa convenientis nutrimenti.
Reply Obj. 1: The use of food and the pleasure that essentially results therefrom pertain to the touch. Hence the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 3) that touch is the sense of food, for food is hot or cold, wet or dry. To the taste belongs the discernment of savors, which make the food pleasant to eat, insofar as they are signs of its being suitable for nourishment.
Ad secundum dicendum quod delectatio saporis est quasi superveniens, sed delectatio tactus per se consequitur usum cibi et potus.
Reply Obj. 2: The pleasure resulting from savor is additional, so to speak, whereas the pleasure of touch results essentially from the use of food and drink.
Ad tertium dicendum quod deliciae principaliter quidem consistunt in ipsa substantia alimenti, sed secundario in exquisito sapore et praeparatione ciborum.
Reply Obj. 3: Delicacy regards principally the substance of the food, but secondarily it regards its delicious savor and the way in which it is served.
Utrum regula temperantiae sit sumenda secundum necessitatem praesentis vitae
Whether the rule of temperance depends on the need of the present life?
Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod regula temperantiae non sit sumenda secundum necessitatem praesentis vitae. Superius enim non regulatur ab inferiori. Sed temperantia, cum sit virtus animae, est superior quam necessitas corporalis. Ergo regula temperantiae non debet sumi secundum necessitatem corporalem.
Objection 1: It would seem that the rule of temperance does not depend on the needs of the present life. For higher things are not regulated according to lower. Now, as temperance is a virtue of the soul, it is above the needs of the body. Therefore the rule of temperance does not depend on the needs of the body.
Praeterea, quicumque excedit regulam, peccat. Si ergo necessitas corporalis esset regula temperantiae, quicumque aliqua delectatione uteretur supra necessitatem naturae, quae valde modicis contenta est, peccaret contra temperantiam. Quod videtur esse inconveniens.
Obj. 2: Further, whoever exceeds a rule sins. Therefore if the needs of the body were the rule of temperance, it would be a sin against temperance to indulge in any other pleasure than those required by nature, which is content with very little. But this would seem unreasonable.
Praeterea, nullus attingens regulam peccat. Si ergo necessitas corporalis esset regula temperantiae, quicumque uteretur aliqua delectatione propter necessitatem corporalem, puta propter sanitatem, esset immunis a peccato. Hoc autem videtur esse falsum. Ergo necessitas corporalis non est regula temperantiae.
Obj. 3: Further, no one sins in observing a rule. Therefore if the need of the body were the rule of temperance, there would be no sin in using any pleasure for the needs of the body, for instance, for the sake of health. But this is apparently false. Therefore the need of the body is not the rule of temperance.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de moribus Eccle., habet vir temperans in rebus huius vitae regulam utroque testamento firmatam, ut eorum nihil diligat, nihil per se appetendum putet; sed ad vitae huius atque officiorum necessitatem quantum sat est usurpet, utentis modestia, non amantis affectu.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. xxi): In both Testaments the temperate man finds confirmation of the rule forbidding him to love the things of this life, or to deem any of them desirable for its own sake, and commanding him to avail himself of those things with the moderation of a user not the attachment of a lover, insofar as they are requisite for the needs of this life and of his station.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex praedictis patet, bonum virtutis moralis praecipue consistit in ordine rationis, nam bonum hominis est secundum rationem esse, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Praecipuus autem ordo rationis consistit ex hoc quod aliqua in finem ordinat, et in hoc ordine maxime consistit bonum rationis nam bonum habet rationem finis, et ipse finis est regula eorum quae sunt ad finem. Omnia autem delectabilia quae in usum hominis veniunt, ordinantur ad aliquam vitae huius necessitatem sicut ad finem. Et ideo temperantia accipit necessitatem huius vitae sicut regulam delectabilium quibus utitur, ut scilicet tantum eis utatur quantum necessitas huius vitae requirit.
I answer that, As stated above (A. 1; Q. 109, A. 2; Q. 123, A. 12), the good of moral virtue consists chiefly in the order of reason: because man’s good is to be in accord with reason, as Dionysius asserts (Div. Nom. iv). Now the principal order of reason is that by which it directs certain things towards their end, and the good of reason consists chiefly in this order; since good has the aspect of end, and the end is the rule of whatever is directed to the end. Now all the pleasurable objects that are at man’s disposal are directed to some necessity of this life as to their end. Wherefore temperance takes the need of this life as the rule of the pleasurable objects of which it makes use, and uses them only for as much as the need of this life requires.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, necessitas huius vitae habet rationem regulae inquantum est finis. Considerandum est autem quod quandoque aliud est finis operantis, et aliud finis operis, sicut patet quod aedificationis finis est domus, sed aedificatoris finis quandoque est lucrum. Sic igitur temperantiae ipsius finis et regula est beatitudo, sed eius rei qua utitur, finis et regula est necessitas humanae vitae, infra quam est id quod in usum vitae venit.
Reply Obj. 1: As stated above, the need of this life is regarded as a rule insofar as it is an end. Now it must be observed that sometimes the end of the worker differs from the end of the work, thus it is clear that the end of building is a house, whereas sometimes the end of the builder is profit. Accordingly the end and rule of temperance itself is happiness; while the end and rule of the thing it makes use of is the need of human life, to which whatever is useful for life is subordinate.
Ad secundum dicendum quod necessitas humanae vitae potest attendi dupliciter, uno modo, secundum quod dicitur necessarium id sine quo res nullo modo potest esse, sicut cibus est necessarius animali; alio modo, secundum quod necessarium dicitur id sine quo res non potest convenienter esse. Temperantia autem non solum attendit primam necessitatem, sed etiam secundam, unde philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod temperatus appetit delectabilia propter sanitatem, vel propter bonam habitudinem. Alia vero quae ad hoc non sunt necessaria, possunt dupliciter se habere. Quaedam enim sunt impedimenta sanitatis vel bonae habitudinis. Et his nullo modo temperatus utitur, hoc enim esset peccatum contra temperantiam. Quaedam vero sunt quae non sunt his impedimenta. Et his moderate utitur, pro loco et tempore et congruentia eorum quibus convivit. Et ideo ibidem philosophus dicit quod et temperatus appetit alia delectabilia, quae scilicet non sunt necessaria ad sanitatem vel ad bonam habitudinem, non impedimenta his existentia.
Reply Obj. 2: The need of human life may be taken in two ways. First, it may be taken in the sense in which we apply the term necessary to that without which a thing cannot be at all; thus food is necessary to an animal. Second, it may be taken for something without which a thing cannot be becomingly. Now temperance regards not only the former of these needs, but also the latter. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 11) that the temperate man desires pleasant things for the sake of health, or for the sake of a sound condition of body. Other things that are not necessary for this purpose may be divided into two classes. For some are a hindrance to health and a sound condition of body; and these temperance makes not use of whatever, for this would be a sin against temperance. But others are not a hindrance to those things, and these temperance uses moderately, according to the demands of place and time, and in keeping with those among whom one dwells. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 11) says that the temperate man also desires other pleasant things, those namely that are not necessary for health or a sound condition of body, so long as they are not prejudicial to these things.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, temperantia respicit necessitatem quantum ad convenientiam vitae. Quae quidem attenditur non solum secundum convenientiam corporis, sed etiam secundum convenientiam exteriorum rerum, puta divitiarum et officiorum; et multo magis secundum convenientiam honestatis. Et ideo philosophus ibidem subdit quod in delectabilibus quibus temperatus utitur, non solum considerat ut non sint impeditiva sanitatis et bonae habitudinis corporalis, sed etiam ut non sint praeter bonum, idest contra honestatem; et quod non sint supra substantiam, idest supra facultatem divitiarum. Et Augustinus dicit, in libro de moribus Eccle., quod temperatus respicit non solum necessitatem huius vitae, sed etiam officiorum.
Reply Obj. 3: As stated (ad 2), temperance regards need according to the requirements of life, and this depends not only on the requirements of the body, but also on the requirements of external things, such as riches and station, and more still on the requirements of good conduct. Hence the Philosopher adds (Ethic. iii, 11) that the temperate man makes use of pleasant things provided that not only they be not prejudicial to health and a sound bodily condition, but also that they be not inconsistent with good, i.e., good conduct, nor beyond his substance, i.e., his means. And Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. xxi) that the temperate man considers the need not only of this life but also of his station.
Utrum temperantia sit virtus cardinalis
Whether temperance is a cardinal virtue?
Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod temperantia non sit virtus cardinalis. Bonum enim virtutis moralis a ratione dependet. Sed temperantia est circa ea quae magis distant a ratione, scilicet circa delectationes quae sunt nobis et brutis communes, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Ergo temperantia non videtur esse principalis virtus.
Objection 1: It would seem that temperance is not a cardinal virtue. For the good of moral virtue depends on reason. But temperance is about those things that are furthest removed from reason, namely about pleasures common to us and the lower animals, as stated in Ethic. iii, 10. Therefore temperance, seemingly, is not a principal virtue.
Praeterea, quanto aliquid est magis impetuosum, tanto difficilius videtur esse ad refrenandum. Sed ira, quam refrenat mansuetudo, videtur esse impetuosior quam concupiscentia, quam refrenat temperantia, dicitur enim Prov. XXVII, ira non habet misericordiam, nec erumpens furor, et impetum concitati spiritus ferre quis poterit? Ergo mansuetudo est principalior virtus quam temperantia.
Obj. 2: Further, the greater the impetus the more difficult is it to control. Now anger, which is controlled by meekness, seems to be more impetuous than desire, which is controlled by temperance. For it is written (Prov 27:4): Anger hath no mercy, nor fury when it breaketh forth; and who can bear the impetus of one provoked? Therefore meekness is a principal virtue rather than temperance.
Praeterea, spes est principalior motus animae quam desiderium seu concupiscentia, ut supra habitum est. Sed humilitas refrenat praesumptionem immoderatae spei. Ergo humilitas videtur esse principalior virtus quam temperantia, quae refrenat concupiscentiam.
Obj. 3: Further, hope as a movement of the soul takes precedence of desire and concupiscence, as stated above (I-II, Q. 25, A. 4). But humility controls the presumption of immoderate hope. Therefore, seemingly, humility is a principal virtue, rather than temperance which controls concupiscence.
Sed contra est quod Gregorius, in II Moral., ponit temperantiam inter virtutes principales.
On the contrary, Gregory reckons temperance among the principal virtues (Moral. ii, 49).
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, virtus principalis seu cardinalis dicitur quae principalius laudatur ex aliquo eorum quae communiter requiruntur ad rationem virtutis. Moderatio autem, quae in omni virtute requiritur, praecipue laudabilis est in delectationibus tactus, circa quae est temperantia, tum quia tales delectationes sunt magis nobis naturales, et ideo difficilius est ab eis abstinere et concupiscentias earum refrenare; tum etiam quia earum obiecta magis sunt necessaria praesenti vitae, ut ex dictis patet. Et ideo temperantia ponitur virtus principalis seu cardinalis.
I answer that, As stated above (Q. 123, A. 11; Q. 61, A. 3), a principal or cardinal virtue is so called because it has a foremost claim to praise on account of one of those things that are requisite for the notion of virtue in general. Now moderation, which is requisite in every virtue, deserves praise principally in pleasures of touch, with which temperance is concerned, both because these pleasures are most natural to us, so that it is more difficult to abstain from them, and to control the desire for them, and because their objects are more necessary to the present life, as stated above (A. 4). For this reason temperance is reckoned a principal or cardinal virtue.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod tanto maior ostenditur agentis virtus, quanto in ea quae sunt magis distantia potest suam operationem extendere. Et ideo ex hoc ipso ostenditur maior virtus rationis quod potest etiam concupiscentias et delectationes maxime distantes moderari. Unde hoc pertinet ad principalitatem temperantiae.
Reply Obj. 1: The longer the range of its operation, the greater is the agent’s power (virtus) shown to be: wherefore the very fact that the reason is able to moderate desires and pleasures that are furthest removed from it, proves the greatness of reason’s power. This is how temperance comes to be a principal virtue.
Ad secundum dicendum quod impetus irae causatur ex quodam accidente, puta ex aliqua laesione contristante, et ideo cito transit, quamvis magnum impetum habeat. Sed impetus concupiscentiae delectabilium tactus procedit ex causa naturali, unde est diuturnior et communior. Et ideo ad principaliorem virtutem pertinet ipsum refrenare.
Reply Obj. 2: The impetuousness of anger is caused by an accident, for instance, a painful hurt; wherefore it soon passes, although its impetus be great. On the other hand, the impetuousness of the desire for pleasures of touch proceeds from a natural cause, wherefore it is more lasting and more general, and consequently its control regards a more principal virtue.